Skip to comments.Barack Obama: Obstructer In Chief?
Posted on 04/10/2016 9:26:28 PM PDT by AJFavish
On April 10, 2016, President Barack Obama appears to have obstructed justice while discussing Hillary Clintons email server with Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday. During the interview they discussed Obamas interview on October 11, 2015, in which he discussed the issue with Steve Kroft of CBS 60 Minutes:
Steve Kroft: Do you think it posed a national security problem?
President Barack Obama: I don't think it posed a national security problem. . . .
Steve Kroft: You think it's not that big a deal--
President Barack Obama: . . . I can tell you that this is not a situation in which Americas national security was endangered.
After playing the latter part of the 60 Minutes clip, Wallace asked Obama about it:
Chris Wallace: Since then weve learned that over 2000 of her emails contained classified material. Twenty-two of the emails had top-secret information. Can you still say flatly that she did not jeopardize Americas secrets?
President Barack Obama: Ive got to be careful because, as you know, there have been investigations. There are hearings. Congress is looking at this. And I havent been sorting through each and every aspect of this. Heres what I know. Hillary Clinton was an outstanding Secretary of State. She would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy. . . .
Chris Wallace: But last October you were prepared to say she hadnt jeopardized and the question is can you still say that?
President Barack Obama: I continue to believe that she has not jeopardized Americas national security. . . .
Obama admits that he has not been sorting through each and every aspect of this. He admits that he has to be careful because . . . there have been investigations and [t]here are hearings. Obama obviously misspoke here by putting the investigations in the past tense because he obviously knows that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is currently investigating the matter. Nevertheless, the important point is that Obama is aware that he does not know all of the facts and the matter is presently under FBI investigation.
Despite this knowledge, and knowing that Clinton had over 2,000 classified emails on her server, including twenty-two that contained top-secret information, he affirms his statement from October 2015 that Clinton did not endanger national security, by stating his belief that she has not jeopardized Americas national security. Obama added that Clinton would never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.
Based on the publicly available information, there is no basis for concluding that Clinton never endangered or jeopardized Americas national security, or that she never intended to do so. If Obama does not have all of the facts about on ongoing investigation, as he admitted, on what basis can he legitimately say that Clinton did not jeopardize national security and would never do so intentionally? There is no such basis. Yet, he makes these statements to Chris Wallace and the American people with a perfectly straight face, as if the investigation has been concluded.
Obama then tells Wallace that he does not talk to the Attorney General and the FBI Director about pending investigations, as he is publicly doing exactly that:
Chris Wallace: . . . Some people I think are worried whether or not the decision whether or not, how to handle the case, will be made on political grounds, not legal grounds. Can you guarantee to the American people, can you direct the Justice Department to say Hillary Clinton will be treated as the evidence goes, she will not be in any way protected?
President Barack Obama: I can guarantee that. . . . I do not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I do not talk to FBI Directors about pending investigations. We have a strict line and always have maintained it. . . .
Chris Wallace: Just to button this up.
President Barack Obama: . . . I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case. . . .
Title 18 of the United States Code, Section 1505 is entitled Obstruction of Proceedings Before Departments, Agencies, and Committees. It states:
. . .
Whoever corruptly . . . or by any . . . communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States . . .
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years . . . .
Title 18 U.S. Code § 1515(b) defines the term corruptly as used in section 1505, as meaning acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement . . . .
At the very least, Obama is publicly endeavoring to influence the Attorney General and FBI Director about how to conclude their investigation regarding Clinton. Just because Obama is not telling them these things privately does not mean that he is not trying to influence them.
Obama may be the most brazen President to obstruct justice, but not the first. The smoking gun audiotape used against President Richard Nixon was a recording of Nixon telling his Chief of Staff, H. R. Haldeman, that the Central Intelligence Agency should be instructed to tell the FBI to refrain from further investigating the money trail and other matters involved with the break-in at the Watergate hotel. Nixon did this on the pretense that further investigation would open the whole Bay of Pigs thing up again and would be very detrimental to the country. Disclosure of this audiotape caused Republicans who previously resisted impeachment, to support the impeachment of Nixon. Before he could be impeached, Nixon resigned.
Apparently, Nixon knew that if he was going to obstruct justice, he should do it in private because there were enough people in government who still believed in enforcing the law, and would thwart his effort if he did it in public. Obama does not feel so constrained it todays America, and is apparently correct in believing that he can get away with acting unlawfully. It is one thing for the President to be corrupt. It is another thing for the American people to tolerate it. America can probably survive the former; it will not survive the latter.
He won a Nobel peace prize? Are we sure that wasn't a ****** please prize?
An absolute feckless fool intent on evil.
Good to see you looking in on this, allan
The forgotten Marxist...
Interesting use of “our”.
Obama says he will not interfere with the inquiry into Hillary Clinton's e-mails.
Then proceeds to interfere by stating he believes Clinton didn't harm national security.
America's King Of Dorkness
Negligence is the issue, pencil neck, Not intent.
This means two things: one, the mere setting up of the private server while refusing to use the dot-gov system is evidence of negligence, and two, if intent is the issue, Mr. President, when are you recommending the overturn of the General Petraeus case, and the return of his fine?
To prove negligence, the content of the e-mails are irrelevant. Intent probably could be proved, there seems to be enough evidence already in the public domain for intent to be established.
As a Senator, he helped the Democrats obstruct Republican efforts to reel in Fannie Mae and Freedie Mac. Now he accuses the Republicans of obstructing his agenda, while doing this.
If the money's right, he'll pardon the bitch on the way out the door. Slick's recent tirade in Philadelphia just pushed up the pricetag.
President Barack Obama: . . . I guarantee that there is no political influence in any investigation conducted by the Justice Department or the FBI, not just in this case, but in any case. . . . shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson,Mo ....... Black Panthers at polling place ..... Lois Lerner ........ Fast and Furious, just to name a few.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.